Jag postade länken om Clintons krigsförklaring mot Iran på ett av Demokraternas forum på MySpace, och svaren lät sig inte vänta. De flesta av dem tycks vara starka anhängare till Obama (de flesta MySpace-användare är relativt unga, och majoriteten av de unga Demokraterna föredrar ju också Obama). En kille i forumet som kallar sig Billy stöder dock Clinton - och så här lät debatten stundom. En ganska intressant debatt som konkret visar hur splittringen inom Demokraterna kan te sig;
----------
Macleod wrote:
Yesterday Hillary Clinton was quoted by NY Times saying:
The Pennsylvania race was volatile into its final hours. Mrs. Clinton, for instance, surprised some Democrats with a remark about Iran on ABC on Tuesday, when she broke with her practice of avoiding hypothetical questions and commented on a situation in which Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.
“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” she said. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/politics/23penn.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&hp&oref=slogin
Since the Democratic party opposes the war in Iraq, is this really a wise thing to say? That statement is a lot more clear than McCains "bomb bomb Iran" song. She basically says that if she is elected president, she will launch an attack on Iran.
-------------------------
Chris wrote:
Posted: Apr 24, 2008 1:08 AM
...if they bomb israel. it’s still something i wholeheartedly oppose, but let’s be honest about it.
we have enough legitimate points to criticize clinton on that we don’t need to stretch the truth to concoct new ones. being dishonest like this will only make obama supporters look bad.
-------------------------
Andee wrote:
Posted: Apr 24, 2008 1:08 AM
I miss the Clintons of the 90’s. I never thought I would see the day where Hillary became irrational and mean spirited instead of the tough first lady who was the bane of every Republican.
It’s simple what Hillary is doing: she’s trying to repeat George W’s election sucess by playing tough and playing dirty politics. She’s trying to do to Obama what Bush did to McCain in 2000. Indeed, she is taking plays from the Republican handbook.
I may be overly optimistic, but I hope that the 18-21 year olds who are fighting this old man’s war in Iraq will help put the final nail in the coffin of Hillary’s crazy campaign rather than risk being sent off to a third war.
-----------
Billy wrote:
Posted: Apr 24, 2008 3:17 AM
What is wrong with it?
You mean to tell me that if Iran attacked Israel with a nuclear weapon that we can’t or should not respond???
That is absurd, nuclear attacks deserve IMMEDIATE response from the President. If not, it sends a BAD message to any other nation who seeks to use nuclear weapons, can I mention North Korea?
If someone attacks with a nuclear weapon you have to respond.
----------------
Octo wrote:
you (Billy) bashed mccain for his hundred years in iraq comment, you bashed obama for stating he would attack al queda bases in pakistan if they were found to have a new plot, so try to remain consistent for once.
----------------
Drive the Nation wrote:
Posted: Apr 24, 2008 4:10 AM
What’s unfortunate, is that people actually try to manufacture these hypothetical situations into an issue. Did Iran ever say they wanted to "nuke Israel"? After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I don’t think the US will be dropping any nukes anytime soon. The issue should be about disarming nuclear weapons in all the countries who currently have them or developing them on a phased time line, not talking about "would you use one if hypothetically this country used one on another nation?"... That to me, seems very preemptive. How is Iran supposed to view our next President as an advocate of peace and change, diplomacy, and trade- if we are saying that we’re going to bomb them in the media? This is the kind of message we want to send to Iranians? That we’re already painting them as an enemy, after we destroyed Iraq?
It’s the right-wing tactics of the pro-war advocates that want to try to get Democrats debating and agreeing with a "war" mentality. Once they can get Hillary Clinton on the record saying that she’d attack Iran, they can edit some sound bytes and video clips and say she’s a flip-flopper, for being pro-war, anti-war, and then all of the sudden, pro-war- and THEN, they show a proud picture of McCain with a huge American flag behind him saying he’s always been "pro war, no flip-flopping". The Republicans are already trying to set it up so they have a hoard of negative ads against Clinton OR Obama, whoever should win. They know they have less attacks on Obama, so they’ve been hoping Clinton can somehow win, but she’s not going to.
Sorry Republicans, too bad- Obama is going to beat your old man, and America is going to change for the better, whether you like it or not.
-----------------------------
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar